Happy Happy HuffPost

The HuffPosters are celebrating this morning. They think their guy won the debate last night, "cleanly and decisively," unleashing a "devastating attack" on Romney:

President Barack Obama mocked Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday for his repeated attack over the size of the Navy, which he has said proves the president doesn't prioritize national defense.

"You mention the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets," Obama said during the final presidential debate.

"We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

"It's not a game of battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our capabilities?'" he said.



One HuffPoster rejoiced that this was "a beautiful slap.down, I couldn't believe my ears."  Obama's base couldn't be happier:

"... this was the Obama I wanted to see in the first debate, and before... the Chicago pol, the streetfighter..." 

 

I doubt that the 359 retired generals and admirals who back Romney enjoyed the Commander in Chief's undignified and ungracious demeanor in quite the same way. The men and women who actually serve in the military, as well as our veterans, understand about "horses and bayonets" ... even if the commander-in-chief and his followers do not.  

 

 

Millions of American Jews (and Christians) understand what Obama has done to our alliance with Israel; we understand what an atom bomb in the hands of the mullahs would mean.

And millions of unemployed folks understand how devastating another four years of the same would be.

Generally speaking, I think everyone is tired of the petty sniping and mean-spirited politics we've had to tolerate ever since the progs turned on George Bush so viciously over the war in Iraq.  And that is what we saw last night from a flailing Obama. If indeed he "won" the debate, he did so on the zingers and slap-downs that constitute "red meat" for the far left -- in other words, his base.

If petty snarling is what would move the undecideds to finally decide, I think they would have gone to Obama much earlier in the game. On the other hand, if they're looking for a reasonable, confident and dignified president with solutions to our myriad problems, then they'll vote for Romney. His demeanor last night was that of the quintessential American president. 

Maybe he didn't "win" the debate, but I do believe that last night he won the election. 

We'll see.

 

Comments

[Meshulam]

Romney did what he should have done last night, Obama did not. At this point, the election comes down to the murky middle. I don't see where anyone whom is truly undecided at this point is going to make up their mind based on snarky one-liners and put-downs in this debate, regardless of whom is doing the, er, snarking. Sure I would have loved to have seen Romney blast Obama regarding, for example, his singling out of Israel as the only country on Earth whose choice of capital city is not accepted by O's State Department, but that would not have gotten him any of those undecideds. As for Obama, if he thinks that sarcasm is what people on the fence need to cast their vote in his favor, well that's just fine with me. I'm more than happy to see the HuffPo's and MSNBC's of the world cheering on his pathological conceit, because it can do nothing but alienate the people who really matter at this point in the election. The focus at this point needs to be on those undecideds, a population that apparently numbers women appreciably more than men. Similarly, Romney needs to focus on the swing states, whichever of those is truly within striking distance. He needs to close this out, a win is very realistic but he can lose it very easily in the last two weeks. A big way for him to lose it was to take an unnecessary risk last night. He did not do so, and for that reason alone, his objective in the debate cycle was accomplished.